Stalagmites and stalactites reveal a 500,000-year history of Siberian permafrost

Evidence from caves in Siberia indicates that a global temperature increase of 1.5° Celsius may cause substantial thawing of a large tract of permanently frozen soil in Siberia. The thawing of this soil, known as permafrost, could have serious consequences for further changes in the climate.

Permafrost regions cover 24 percent of the land surface in the northern hemisphere, and they hold twice as much carbon as is currently present in the atmosphere. As the permafrost thaws, it turns from a carbon sink (meaning it accumulates and stores carbon) into a carbon source, releasing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Both of these gasses enhance the greenhouse effect.

By looking at how permafrost has responded to climate change in the past, we can gain a better understanding of climate change today. A team of international researchers looked at speleothems, such as stalagmites, stalactites, and flowstones. These are mineral deposits that are formed when water from snow or rain seeps into the caves. When conditions are too cold or too dry, speleothem growth ceases, since no water flows through the caves. As a result, speleothems provide a detailed history of periods when liquid water was available as well as an assessment of the relationship between global temperature and permafrost extent.

Using radioactive dating and data on growth from six Siberian caves, the researchers tracked the history of permafrost in Siberia for the past 450,000 years. The caves were located at varying latitudes, ranging from a boundary of continuous permafrost at 60 degrees North to the permafrost-free Gobi Desert.

In the northernmost cave, Lenskaya Ledyanaya, no speleothem growth has occurred since a particularly warm period around 400,000 years ago—the growth at that time suggests water was flowing in the area due to a melt in the permafrost. The extensive thawing at that time allows for an assessment of the warming required globally to cause a similar change in the permafrost boundary. Global temperatures at that time were only 1.5°C warmer than today, suggesting that we could be approaching a critical point at which the coldest permafrost regions would begin to thaw.

Not only will increasing global temperatures cause substantial thawing of permafrost, but it may also create wetter conditions in the Gobi Dessert, based on data from the southern-most cave obtained for the same time period. This suggests a dramatically changed environment in continental Asia.

Aside from changes in temperature and precipitation, thawing permafrost enables coastal erosion and the liquefaction of ground that was previously frozen. This poses a risk to the infrastructure of Siberia, including major oil and gas facilities.

Allie Wilkinson
Allie is a freelance contributor to Ars Technica. She received a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Eckerd College and a Certificate in Conservation Biology from Columbia University's Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability. Twitter@loveofscience

132 Reader Comments

CO2 lags behind temperature changes. First global temps change and THEN CO2 levels change. It's in the ice record. It's in the geological record. Why is this? It's well known to oceanographers, climatologists, and geologists that there is a lg of a few hundred years between changes in CO2 levels and global temp changes. Why? Because it takes that long for the oceans to warm and cool in response to global temperature changes. As the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere. As they cool they absorb CO2. This is how it ALWAYS is. A change in CO2 content has never preceded global temperature changes.

If only you realized the full implication of what you're writing, it's the perfect example of a positive feedback loop. 'Something' causes an initial warming, CO2 is released and amplifies the temperature rise. Voila, CO2 lags temperature.

Historically this has been what happened because, historically, there hasn't been a fossil fuel based civilization pumping out millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere so temperature excursions were previously from some other source. However, now increased CO2 emissions (higher levels and rates than the previous 1M years) is causing that initial temperature rise. And, as you point out, this temperature rise will also cause CO2 to be released and further amplify the effect.

This data, instead of making you skeptical, should scare the sh*t out of you. If only you understood it.

He understands what he is saying. I guarantee it. He has reasons for posting as he does, either financial, philosophical, political, religious or something else. But he knows what he is writing and what it means.

The other problem for a lot of climate change deniers is they don't seem to realise that man has been influencing the climate for thousands of years by clearing land and burning off and we're never stopped doing this just massively accelerated it in the last 50 years.

For the claims that permafrost will melt and turn into perfectly viable agricultural land , is there a shred of evidence ?

What about the likely hood of the water table rising and the problems of brackish/salinity associated with it ?

I thought it was already pretty well accepted that we've passed the practical point of not hitting thermal runaway? There's doesn't seem to be any real chance whatsoever that humanity will actually prevent CO2 from blowing right by 600-700ppm. And as we go by that it'll be probably the permafrost first, but at some point (once deep water finally starts to warm) methane clathrates will probably destabilize also and then it's really off to the races isn't it? Seems like the only real question is about timing of it all, just thermal expansion alone should be enough to raise ocean levels tremendously over the centuries, but it's hard to put something firm on 2050 vs 2100 vs 2150 etc. 10m by 2100 is starting to look much more possible though.

There's also zero evidence that CO2, human generated or otherwise, is a driver of global warming or cooling. Plus where's the "hot spot" we were promised was going to show up? Global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12km, 200hPa @ 20°N - 20°S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable. It was predicted by climate models and many researchers. So... where is it? Even the IPPC has been forced to admit that global temps have been virtually flat for the past 17 years. What has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been doing? Rising...

Uhmm there is nothing but evidence that CO2/CH4/H2O contributes to warming. Its a freaking property of the molecule. It interacts with IR radiation and starts to rotate faster because of the extra energy. This excited CO2/CH4/H2O molecule than bumps into other molecules transferring its kinetic energy forming heat. Say what you want about anything else but you really have your head int eh sand.

CO2 lags behind temperature changes. First global temps change and THEN CO2 levels change. It's in the ice record. It's in the geological record. Why is this? It's well known to oceanographers, climatologists, and geologists that there is a lg of a few hundred years between changes in CO2 levels and global temp changes. Why? Because it takes that long for the oceans to warm and cool in response to global temperature changes. As the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere. As they cool they absorb CO2. This is how it ALWAYS is. A change in CO2 content has never preceded global temperature changes.

Look, I know you probably don't even read anything that doesn't agree with you, but at least others may take note... CO2 of course can lag temperature. This is because there are OTHER FORCINGS, and in fact if no other forcings existed then the Earth would quickly reach thermal equilibrium. So, for instance, Milankovich cycles provide a small positive forcing, which then causes a rise in CO2, which in turn causes a greater forcing, etc in a positive feedback, until eventually some plateau is reached, at which point the same cycle can reverse and we get a positive feedback in the opposite direction. CO2 (and even more so water vapor) act as amplifiers of instability, at least for smallish temperature changes. Thus nothing you are stating here is in any way in contradition to AGW, it is in fact simply irrelevant.

Then we have the sudden drop in GLOBAL temps in 1997. Global temps dropped like a stone. It was so dramatic that 100 years of global warming was virtually undone in just 12 months. This happened in spite of the fact that atmospheric CO2 content has continued its steady rise. If CO2 drove change then this would not have happened. again, we are talking GLOBAL temps not LOCAL weather. Something many people confuse.

There is no drop in global temperatures people. This is just a silly myth. Again http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm there is simply no such thing as a either cooling nor any significant pause in warming for that matter. Like all natural processes warming isn't a perfectly linear steady process, nor is it one simple process, the ocean, the land, the atmosphere, all of them participate and the heat isn't always distributed in the same way every year depending on things like ENSO, etc. Again, given that your assertion here is simply false, this is evidence of nothing except some people's desperate need to bury the problem.

Nothing in this article is the slightest bit surprising to me. The only thing that seems even a bit new is the methods used. The evidence of permafrost melt has been obvious for over a decade. The implications for release of carbon dioxide and methane equally so. The only real benefit of this kind of research is to beat deniers over the head with more data.

Nothing in this article is the slightest bit surprising to me. The only thing that seems even a bit new is the methods used. The evidence of permafrost melt has been obvious for over a decade. The implications for release of carbon dioxide and methane equally so. The only real benefit of this kind of research is to beat deniers over the head with more data.

That's not actually true. They're working out magnitude and timing, things to look for in past climate changes, etc. There's a hell of a lot of interesting stuff in the details.

I'd pose another question to you. What makes YOU think we can stop our ever changing climate? As all other animals have done before us when the climate changes, we will ADAPT.

Your question is irrelevant to mine. I believe in science and technology and am willing to take personal responsibility for that. If you think I'm wrong then what's the problem, regardless of why you think I'm wrong? Furthermore, adaptation is extremely expensive. That's the point. It's not physically impossible to relocate much of the East Cost, but it's also not free. Please answer my question rather then trying to dodge it by posting another one (and a stupid, irrelevant one at that).

Yes it is. And I answered your question. You simply don't like my answer.

You did not answer my question, you dodged it. Again. I asked for a simple yes/no response, for you to given the same clear answer that I myself was willing to give. You didn't answer, you "posed another question" instead. At least though, this serves to clarify for everyone else reading: this is the type of intellectually dishonest person g0m3r619 and his ilk are. Even when asked a simple question with no science component at all, a mere inquiry into whether they would actually be willing to be responsible for the very position they advocate, they can't bring themselves to do anything but the same, tired dodging. They are merely confused about facts or making mistakes in reasoning, they are fundamentally lacking in integrity.

This is actually a good test for deniers in general. If they're willing to say "yes, I'd pay it all if I'm wrong" then, at the least, they're willing to go through the motions of responsibility. If they won't even do that, then it should be a red flag: they're trash, and the only possible value in responding to what they say is in the hope of preventing them from misleading others.

I had hoped you were an honest person and thus would answer my question first, but as you clearly are not interested in such things I'll give this a quick reply instead:

Quote:

What makes YOU think we can stop our ever changing climate?

Because it's just basic physics and economics, stuff we understand reasonably well. The scale is large, but this still isn't magic as you seem to believe. Fundamentally, between thorium and breeding uranium nuclear fission technology alone is sufficient to supply our civilization's energy needs into the foreseeable future, even without resorting to anything exotic. An even more efficient mixture of solar, wind, nuclear, and geothermal should do even better. We easily have the technology (nor is it that expensive in the scale of such projects) to do a vastly better power distribution system. This wasn't possible originally (DC was harder to step up/step down before the advent of modern solid state transformers) but now we have the ability to do an ultra high voltage DC backbone (preferably with a super conducting core backbone) which would enable generation and consumption of power anywhere in the nation, or even the world, with minimal transmission losses. That covers most of our energy use except for transportation, where electric still has a ways to go. Even there though it's within striking distance outside of aircraft, and of course with sufficient electrical generation available it's possible to make entirely synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.

That'd still leave some other sources, like forest destruction, concrete manufacturing etc, but it'd be a huge chunk and it wouldn't even have to result in any long term changes in our standards of living. Quite the contrary, in fact. It's been fully possible to reverse and control the forcings that we ourselves introduced and continue to push for quite some time.

Quote:

As all other animals have done before us when the climate changes, we will ADAPT.

Actually, most of the animals that came before us went extinct, duh. That's the fate of the majority of species throughout history. It's besides the point though because no one credible is worried about humanity overall, it's about costs and suffering. Concepts that you love to studiously ignore when you throw out incredibly stupid statements like above. Adaptation of species goes together with mass dieoffs and other bits of unpleasantness most people would prefer to avoid. In human terms it will also result in massive, massive expense and that still won't be enough, particularly for the worse off (which you probably also don't care about). Again, economics is key. Much of the East Coast going underwater is something we can adapt to, of course, just like you want. We're not going to all die from it. Much of the East Coast going under would also be a horrendous waste, cost countless trillions, result in at least some deaths and significant instability, etc.

What do you find hard to understand about the above? You keep saying "Don't worry, some people will likely still live!" as if that's the contention when it isn't and never was.

Personally I think that energy wise we are currently in a poverty trap which is why there is such a political battle about climate change rather than it being purely scientific and then informing the policies.

For those that don't know, a poverty trap is where you know that to improve your standard of living you need to buy better quality goods that will take longer to wear out and save you time. However you never have the money to do so because you're always spending it on keeping the current stuff going.

Xoa, I understand your desire to extract a useful response out of Gomer regarding his willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of his position should he be wrong, but I don't know how useful of a question it really is. It essentially seems like asking someone who is skeptical about the existence of God "what if you're wrong?" That question has no bearing on whether a deity actually exists, but rather invites the questioned party to calculate their certainty that they are correct and balance that certainty against the advantages of being correct and disadvantages of being wrong. That's certainly a worthwhile discussion to have (especially in the context of AGW), but it's probably best to have that conversation directly rather than as a version of Pascal's Wager. His level of certainty and reasons for that level of certainty seem more germane to the discussion than his willingness to pay for being wrong.

I suppose the question could also be used to suss out whether Gomer is being sincere in his assertions, but I don't think it would be helpful in that context either. If he's being disingenuous about his skepticism of AGW, then it stand to reason he would be just as likely to be disingenuous about how willing he is to take responsibility should he be proven wrong.

Edited simply to add that you've done way more to debunk Gomer's ridiculous claims than I have, so please understand that my criticism is meant to be constructive.

Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

The problem is that it'll take at least several decades for some of it to turn into arable land, if not a century.Meanwhile climate change will severely reduce the productivity of their breadbaskets, as well as everybody else's.

Personally I think that energy wise we are currently in a poverty trap which is why there is such a political battle about climate change rather than it being purely scientific and then informing the policies.

For those that don't know, a poverty trap is where you know that to improve your standard of living you need to buy better quality goods that will take longer to wear out and save you time. However you never have the money to do so because you're always spending it on keeping the current stuff going.

By "we" do you mean people, or the government? Because the government is not in a poverty trap by any means whatsoever.

Personally I think that energy wise we are currently in a poverty trap which is why there is such a political battle about climate change rather than it being purely scientific and then informing the policies.

For those that don't know, a poverty trap is where you know that to improve your standard of living you need to buy better quality goods that will take longer to wear out and save you time. However you never have the money to do so because you're always spending it on keeping the current stuff going.

There is no such thing as a poverty trap. Or that the US is poor. It is about using the workforce properly, has nothing to do with poverty. Money is just a transfer of work. You pay for someone else's work. Money is a tool. The system the US uses may not be the most efficient, but it is decent. The US has enough of a workforce to make, build, run...whatever is needed. It could levee around the US if the desire was there. Sure it takes organization and direction but it's really not that much. Sure there would need to be a financial incentive to do it because of the system we use, but that is easily done.

It's about choices made. Do what is right, or do what is easy.

The US spends about half the budget (excluding SS and Medicare) on Defense, switch half of this to infrastructure and you would have a half a million people running around making levees if the desire was there, or making hundreds of thousands of wind turbines or hundreds of nuclear plants. It really isn't that difficult, just the will to get it done.

Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

doesn't work like that, unfortunately: when permafrost melts, it leaves behind a marshy, acid mess that's entirely unsuited for agriculture. it's also got a tendency to swallow whatever vehicles and infrastructure you try to put on it.

For one thing, additional arable land is far outweighed by desertification of other areas. For another, even if more land in some areas becomes usable, current civilization is based around the existing usable land, and mass migration would be a human catastrophe.

Are there any sources for this? I don't doubt that this could happen, but I'm curious to see if this is a (for lack of a better term) research niche that anyone has explored.

Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

doesn't work like that, unfortunately: when permafrost melts, it leaves behind a marshy, acid mess that's entirely unsuited for agriculture. it's also got a tendency to swallow whatever vehicles and infrastructure you try to put on it.

Nothing would ever get done with this attitude. Because *everything* seems *so hard*.

Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

The problem is that it'll take at least several decades for some of it to turn into arable land, if not a century.Meanwhile climate change will severely reduce the productivity of their breadbaskets, as well as everybody else's.

And you know that, how?

basic* plant biology?

Quote:

Humans, have mastered genome engineering, for god sake. They certainly are capable of moving agriculture on a minute notice.

It ain't much of a PERMA-FROST, if it melts Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

Canadians should also be happy about this, because the favorable agricultural climate will migrate up from the American midwest to central Canada. Americans, on the other hand, might not be so happy if the climate shift means that what used to be Mexican climate migrates up into the former American breadbasket.

Imagine a future where more and more Canadians protest the massive influx of illegal farm workers from south of the border, actively making the immigrants' lives miserable with laws, discrimination, and firearms...but this time, those farm workers will be desperate and broke white Americans sneaking north across the Canadian border, fleeing the failed farms that dried up in the hotter climate of 21st century.

It ain't much of a PERMA-FROST, if it melts Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

Canadians should also be happy about this, because the favorable agricultural climate will migrate up from the American midwest to central Canada. Americans, on the other hand, might not be so happy if the climate shift means that what used to be Mexican climate migrates up into the former American breadbasket.

Imagine a future where more and more Canadians protest the massive influx of illegal farm workers from south of the border, making their lives miserable with laws, discrimination, and firearms...but this time those farm workers will be desperate, poor, white Americans sneaking north across the Canadian border, fleeing the failed farms that dried up in the hotter climate of 21st century.

Is that a necessarily good thing? Isn't most of that area currently forest and moving agriculture to it require significant deforestation?

Okay, I don't truly think Canadians are sitting around in their log cabins nevertheless the amount of forests not to mention mountainous regions are legendary.

Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

doesn't work like that, unfortunately: when permafrost melts, it leaves behind a marshy, acid mess that's entirely unsuited for agriculture. it's also got a tendency to swallow whatever vehicles and infrastructure you try to put on it.

Nothing would ever get done with this attitude. Because *everything* seems *so hard*.

This takes the cake for dumbest reply I've seen in a long time. Does our mastery of plant genetics permit us to grow plants in gravel? Can we grow them in tar, quicksand, concrete, the open ocean, outer space? Is genetic engineering some form of magic that makes anything able to grow, productively anywhere no matter what? Can plants extract minerals and nutrients from soil that does not contain it because *GMO MAGIC*?

Do you really believe we live in a Star Trek world where all problems can be solved because *science*??

Ice heat content is determined by volume, not surface area. Weakly surface area fluctuations are meaningless.

Quote:

Next, the heat hidden in the ocean? Not in your wildest dream; according to Argo network http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ (Please note the diminishing error bar emphasizing more confidence in the latest data).

And you please note my Skeptical Science reference specifically included the net sum heat anomalies of (1) Land-Air-Ice, (2) OHC to 700m, and (3) OHC from 700 to 2000 m. If you're going to cherry pick data e.g. OHC to 700m alone, at least pick yourself a generous helping. (If, otoh, you wish to argue that a five or ten year time interval is too short to be meaningful, go right ahead and be my jest.)

Xoa, I understand your desire to extract a useful response out of Gomer regarding his willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of his position should he be wrong, but I don't know how useful of a question it really is. It essentially seems like asking someone who is skeptical about the existence of God "what if you're wrong?"

In all seriousness, it isn't remotely the same. This is not some theoretical, abstract question that cannot be truly answered and has no policy implications. On the contrary, this is one the biggest policy challenges facing our entire species and is taking place right now, with concrete results in the near future. This is a debate over the here and now, and on whether, and to what degree, we should spend money now to prevent tremendous expense in the future. g0m3r619 and the like are actively trying to push the other way: they are saying that there is no problem, that we should do nothing. If they're wrong, it'll cost trillions of dollars at the minimum and affect billions of lives.

All of us are constantly faced with making cost/benefit tradeoffs aiming for future results with imperfect information. In general, it's expected that if things go badly the buck stops at the people who made the decision, because in order for rational decisions to be encouraged externalities have to be reduced. A comparison that actually has similarities would be the current debate over investment bankers and high level management. In many cases the results system has been structured such that they can take enormous bets and if it goes well they get enormous rewards, but if it goes badly then they get off with minimal consequences or even the opposite (golden parachutes). What is the result of such a reward structure? Well, naturally people take the risk. Why not? You stand to gain if it's goes well, and if it doesn't then everyone else pays.

It's not unreasonable to inquire as to if g0m3r619 and other deniers are of that same type: internalize the profit, socialize the risk.

Quote:

That question has no bearing on whether a deity actually exists, but rather invites the questioned party to calculate their certainty that they are correct and balance that certainty against the advantages of being correct and disadvantages of being wrong.

Actually no, the deity bit is central to Pascal's Wager. Pascal himself wrote that "reason is incapable of divining the truth": the whole point was that it was not proof of anything nor was any evidence of any kind involved, rather the decision is to be made purely on supposed results. The is no "calculating certainty" because the wager is a pure appeal to consequences, and the decision matrix only works the way Pascal intended if a large positive probability is assumed.

That's not the case here, where we're dealing with tangible cost/benefit tradeoffs and can make serious date-based predictions. "Calculate their certainty that they are correct and balance that certainty against the advantages of being correct and disadvantages of being wrong" is roughly what anyone making economic decisions regarding the future must do (the insurance industry being a major example). What else do you propose? These decisions don't exist in a vacuum. Why should the people who ignore all evidence and reason, gain the short term benefits, and then be able to skip away scot free if they're wrong? Does that encourage long-term thinking and constructive decisions?

When it's a decision that purely affects the ones making the decision, this is all relatively easy. But there are many decisions we can make with tremendous externalities. Other classic examples include toxic pollution and vaccination.

Quote:

Edited simply to add that you've done way more to debunk Gomer's ridiculous claims than I have, so please understand that my criticism is meant to be constructive.

I understand you're trying to be constructive, and I sincerely hope I haven't come across harshly here. That said, I don't believe your criticism is applicable in this case.

I notice that g0m3r619 is once again actively posting in a new discussion after having run away from previous discussions.

Take notice as well that he's apparently run away from this discussion too. "Luckily" right away we've got tegirinenashi to take over! Although maybe he won't be long for this thread either since he's already carefully ignoring ligne linking right away to his previous BS parade.

Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

doesn't work like that, unfortunately: when permafrost melts, it leaves behind a marshy, acid mess that's entirely unsuited for agriculture. it's also got a tendency to swallow whatever vehicles and infrastructure you try to put on it.

Nothing would ever get done with this attitude. Because *everything* seems *so hard*.

This takes the cake for dumbest reply I've seen in a long time. Does our mastery of plant genetics permit us to grow plants in gravel? Can we grow them in tar, quicksand, concrete, the open ocean, outer space? Is genetic engineering some form of magic that makes anything able to grow, productively anywhere no matter what? Can plants extract minerals and nutrients from soil that does not contain it because *GMO MAGIC*?

Do you really believe we live in a Star Trek world where all problems can be solved because *science*??

As I have mentioned before, all other things being equal, agricultural production is expected at least double in the next 20 years. Now, your the-sky-is-falling crowd would insist that the assumption that the other things being equal is invalid. Then, it is up to you to exhibit your homework that proves that increased CO2 and temperature would somehow harm plant life, because it is bluntly against common sense. I mean how moronic for you, while knowing that according to global warming prediction it is nighttime temperature that is expected to increase (thus reducing the day temperature fluctuations), still insist such a warming to be a bad thing.

Besides, Russians are not going to object much if they get fertile land instead of an ice desert...

doesn't work like that, unfortunately: when permafrost melts, it leaves behind a marshy, acid mess that's entirely unsuited for agriculture. it's also got a tendency to swallow whatever vehicles and infrastructure you try to put on it.

Nothing would ever get done with this attitude. Because *everything* seems *so hard*.

This takes the cake for dumbest reply I've seen in a long time. Does our mastery of plant genetics permit us to grow plants in gravel? Can we grow them in tar, quicksand, concrete, the open ocean, outer space? Is genetic engineering some form of magic that makes anything able to grow, productively anywhere no matter what? Can plants extract minerals and nutrients from soil that does not contain it because *GMO MAGIC*?

Do you really believe we live in a Star Trek world where all problems can be solved because *science*??

As I have mentioned before, all other things being equal, agricultural production is expected at least double in the next 20 years. Now, your the-sky-is-falling crowd would insist that the assumption that the other things being equal is invalid. Then, it is up to you to exhibit your homework that proves that increased CO2 and temperature would somehow harm plant life, because it is bluntly against common sense. I mean how moronic for you, while knowing that according to global warming prediction it is nighttime temperature that is expected to increase (thus reducing the day temperature fluctuations), still insist such a warming to be a bad thing.

Your original assertion was that we could grow in the land that was not previously arable land(ie: northern Canada, Russian tundra). Now you seem to have shifted to 'hydroponics' which really can be done anywhere, although it has serious issues with scaling. Does this mean you abandon the claim that GMO crops means we can grow in land that is wholly unsuitable to food crops?

As I have mentioned before, all other things being equal, agricultural production is expected at least double in the next 20 years. Now, your the-sky-is-falling crowd would insist that the assumption that the other things being equal is invalid. Then, it is up to you to exhibit your homework that proves that increased CO2 and temperature would somehow harm plant life, because it is bluntly against common sense. I mean how moronic for you, while knowing that according to global warming prediction it is nighttime temperature that is expected to increase (thus reducing the day temperature fluctuations), still insist such a warming to be a bad thing.

1. The next 20 years isn't the problem. 2. "Increased CO2 and temperature" is misleading. "Increased CO2" -- yeah, mostly good from plant pov. "Increased temperature" not so much. Depends on the plant, and whether or no available water increases as well. Spend some time helping your mom in her garden. 3. How does increased night time minimum temperature in any way even out day temperature maxima? Have you even looked at the projections? And where's the benefit in eliminating naturally cool air at bedtime?

Ice heat content is determined by volume, not surface area. Weakly surface area fluctuations are meaningless.

Fluctuations are irrelevant, the total surface sea ice anomaly is close to 0 for quite a while now. I'm all for the volume too, but please demonstrate that we have reliable measurements with error bars at least comparable to what we have for the area.

Quote:

Quote:

Next, the heat hidden in the ocean? Not in your wildest dream; according to Argo network http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ (Please note the diminishing error bar emphasizing more confidence in the latest data).

And you please note my Skeptical Science reference specifically included the net sum heat anomalies of (1) Land-Air-Ice, (2) OHC to 700m, and (3) OHC from 700 to 2000 m. If you're going to cherry pick data e.g. OHC to 700m alone, at least pick yourself a generous helping. (If, otoh, you wish to argue that a five or ten year time interval is too short to be meaningful, go right ahead and be my jest.)

I don't understand: what is the biggest heat contribute on that "skepticalscience" graph? 0-700m. Therefore, we can focus on it alone. Next, doesn't NOAA ARGO graph indicates that this data is unreliable?

You may also wait for Nasa, Noaa, Hadley, IPCC, etc to estimate global temperatures from just those two closely spaced Antarctic data points.

No, the reasoning is different here. According to global warming theory, the increased temperatures are more evident at the poles (polar amplification). Thus, by looking into just polar stations we can certainly spot the trend easier, correct?

Fluctuations are irrelevant, the total surface sea ice anomaly is close to 0 for quite a while now. I'm all for the volume too, but please demonstrate that we have reliable measurements with error bars at least comparable to what we have for the area.

Part of me fears the answer to this question, but what planet do you live on?

Fluctuations are irrelevant, the total surface sea ice anomaly is close to 0 for quite a while now. I'm all for the volume too, but please demonstrate that we have reliable measurements with error bars at least comparable to what we have for the area.

Part of me fears the answer to this question, but what planet do you live on?